Real amps vs fake amps

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I think the only two units that anyone (outside of marketing) has ever said faithfully recreate a tube amp are the AxeFX and the Kemper.

The Kemper does actually have an A/B switch on it so once you've made your profile you can switch between them and see how close you've gotten. I remember reading a thing a while back where the user had used the A/B switch, and then decided the switch must not be working, because they were only hearing the real amp. So they turned off the real amp, and hey presto, the switch was working fine. It just really was that good.

You posted this same exact thing in my thread.  I think you probably thought you were posting in this one and posted it in my thread about the order of effects.  :toothy12:

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Yup, that's exactly what happened. I've been into the other thread and blanked that post.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Yup, that's exactly what happened. I've been into the other thread and blanked that post.

No worries!  ccasion14:

 

[stratamania]

It may have been mentioned earlier in the thread but it isn't just the sound it is also the feel and dynamics. When the modeller or profiler responds to finger touch and volume changes on the guitar and you can feel it in the chest at volume it's doing a good job. The high end ones can do this when put through something like an Atomic CLR FRFR set up or through a Matrix amp and either a guitar cab or monitors with cab modelling on or off as required.

I think it really is at a point now where you pay your money and take your choice.

 

[Creeping Death]

Okay so I have to ask. Have you ever used a modeller? I keep seeing you mention the UX2 but that is NOT a modeller. Also just my personal opinion, but with other Line6 offerings of actual modellers such as the HD500 priced at only 499 I don't hear a $2,000 improvement in having a fractal. It is quite hard for me to justify that much money on such a purchase though. If I was rolling in money than perhaps it would be more reasonable of a purchase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gYLfCTbJzw

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Okay so I have to ask. Have you ever used a modeller? I keep seeing you mention the UX2 but that is NOT a modeller. Also just my personal opinion, but with other Line6 offerings of actual modellers such as the HD500 priced at only 499 I don't hear a $2,000 improvement in having a fractal. It is quite hard for me to justify that much money on such a purchase though. If I was rolling in money than perhaps it would be more reasonable of a purchase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gYLfCTbJzw

Well, what would YOU call a UX2?  If it's made to replicate sounds, it's a modeler.  How basic can you get? 

Have I used a modeler?  Not at great length, but for the few moments I did spend with one, it was fun, in the same way a UX2 is fun.  Personally, I don't find a modeler to be worth $2,000.  You couldn't pay me to spend that much on a glorified XBox for guitars.

 

[Cagey]

Well, what would YOU call a UX2?  If it's made to replicate sounds, it's a modeler.  How basic can you get? 

I imagine he'd call it what everybody else calls it, including Line 6: an audio/USB interface. And you're right - it is basic. It's just an A->D converter that facilitates getting guitar/bass/vocal signals into a computer. There are a number of similar devices out there from the likes of MOTU, M-Audio, E-Mu, etc. None of them model anything.

There is software available that will do modelling for you once you've got the signal into the computer, but that's a separate thing. Line 6 sells something called "Pod Farm" that is often bundled with the UX2, but there are a number of other software packages you can buy that will work as well. There are 12 described here alone. None of them can touch the KPA or the Axe Fx, nor would they inspire you to sell your real gear, but they're effective enough to be fun to play with.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Well, what would YOU call a UX2?  If it's made to replicate sounds, it's a modeler.  How basic can you get?

It's not made for that, though, in the same way a microphone isn't a modeller. It's literally just a way of turning a guitar signal into some USB data for your computer to understand. It doesn't do any processing or EQ shaping of the signal whatsoever. If your computer had a 1/4" instrument input jack on it then the UX2 wouldn't be necessary.

If you mean you tried the UX2 into a computer with POD Farm installed on it, be aware that that is a $99 piece of software, based on 2007 technology, and not really a suitable basis on which to form an opinion of modelling in general.

Have I used a modeler?  Not at great length, but for the few moments I did spend with one, it was fun, in the same way a UX2 is fun.  Personally, I don't find a modeler to be worth $2,000.  You couldn't pay me to spend that much on a glorified XBox for guitars.

See, comments like this are what I was talking about in the very first post of the thread ("I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements[...] They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic."). You haven't actually said anything about modellers here other than that you don't like them. "Glorified XBox" is just a pejorative term, and makes about as much sense as calling a JCM800 a "glorified ENIAC".

Spending "a few moments" with a modeller is obviously enough for you to make your mind up, and that's your prerogative, but it's not enough to give you an informed opinion on the subject.

It's taking me longer than expected for me to get the clips together, but when I do, I'll be intrigued to see whether you or I can reliably tell the difference between the real and modelled sound.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Well, what would YOU call a UX2?  If it's made to replicate sounds, it's a modeler.  How basic can you get?

It's not made for that, though, in the same way a microphone isn't a modeller. It's literally just a way of turning a guitar signal into some USB data for your computer to understand. It doesn't do any processing or EQ shaping of the signal whatsoever. If your computer had a 1/4" instrument input jack on it then the UX2 wouldn't be necessary.

If you mean you tried the UX2 into a computer with POD Farm installed on it, be aware that that is a $99 piece of software, based on 2007 technology, and not really a suitable basis on which to form an opinion of modelling in general.

Have I used a modeler?  Not at great length, but for the few moments I did spend with one, it was fun, in the same way a UX2 is fun.  Personally, I don't find a modeler to be worth $2,000.  You couldn't pay me to spend that much on a glorified XBox for guitars.

See, comments like this are what I was talking about in the very first post of the thread ("I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements[...] They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic."). You haven't actually said anything about modellers here other than that you don't like them. "Glorified XBox" is just a pejorative term, and makes about as much sense as calling a JCM800 a "glorified ENIAC".

Spending "a few moments" with a modeller is obviously enough for you to make your mind up, and that's your prerogative, but it's not enough to give you an informed opinion on the subject.

It's taking me longer than expected for me to get the clips together, but when I do, I'll be intrigued to see whether you or I can reliably tell the difference between the real and modelled sound.

That's incorrect.  In my first post in this thread, I mentioned numerous times I enjoyed messing with modelers, but I preferred a live sound from an actual amp over modeling equipment.

Touching on your comments about what the UX2 does and doesn't do, there are "knobs" on the model amps in which you can "sculpt" a tone.  Whether it's a great tone or not is another thing altogether, but you can.  According to Line 6, it is made to "replicate" sounds!  There are also preinstalled sounds which emulate those of bands such as Metallica, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, and many more!  The UX2 has a lot of nice features, contrary to what you may think of it.  Is it as advanced as a $2,000 piece of equipment?  I highly doubt it!

There are programs out there that do EQ shaping and all that garbage.  Programs form Apple's Logic to Pro Tools possess these cabilities.

Look, that's great if you like modeling effects, if that's your thing, that's your thing, but keep in mind, you opened the thread looking for opinions, did you not?  You did, after all, title this thread "REAL AMPS vs. FAKE AMPS," did you not?

When you started this thread, you knew everyone was going to jump in here and offer up opinions based on both, factual information, and/or personal experiences with each type of equipment.  I've messed with modeling equipment enough to know I prefer an actual amp to a modeler, but it doesn't mean I don't like messing around with modelers.  You can do some neat things with them, but for me, they simply don't feel right.  I can never find my groove when playing through a modeler, it just feels "unnatural."

As for whether the clips you put up are modeled or otherwise, NOTHING sounds natural through a recording.  There is so much processing, clipping, EQing, etc. with recordings, by the time a record is released, it's probably all modeled in one way or another.  It can also be argued that the moment you add a pedal to the mix, you're using a modeler.  Any device being used to modify the sound of a particular product is technically modeling, isn't it?  :icon_thumright: 

 

[Jumble Jumble]

I do wish you wouldn't get so strident about this stuff.

That's incorrect.  In my first post in this thread, I mentioned numerous times I enjoyed messing with modelers, but I preferred a live sound from an actual amp over modeling equipment.

Touching on your comments about what the UX2 does and doesn't do, there are "knobs" on the model amps in which you can "sculpt" a tone.  Whether it's a great tone or not is another thing altogether, but you can.  According to Line 6, it is made to "replicate" sounds!  There are also preinstalled sounds which emulate those of bands such as Metallica, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, and many more!  The UX2 has a lot of nice features, contrary to what you may think of it.  Is it as advanced as a $2,000 piece of equipment?  I highly doubt it!

OK, what has happened here is a simple misunderstanding. You have confused the Line 6 UX2, an audio interface, with Pod Farm, the bundled software that comes with it. Pod farm is a piece of software, based on the Pod X3 (released in 2007), that allows you to use your PC as a modeller. You could throw the UX2 away and still use Pod Farm on any guitar audio you manage to record on to the PC. The software's extremely basic. Of course it has an EVH patch in there and so on, but those patches are bad. The Pod X3 itself is discontinued because Line6 have since improved their modelling.

you opened the thread looking for opinions, did you not?

Well, what I actually said was:

I'm interested to hear more pros and cons in different scenarios, or especially if you own both, which ones you use in which scenarios and why.

I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements like "modelling is better, period" or "digital stuff has no soul". They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic.

I can never find my groove when playing through a modeler, it just feels "unnatural."

So, "digital stuff has no soul" then? See above.

As for whether the clips you put up are modeled or otherwise, NOTHING sounds natural through a recording.  There is so much processing, clipping, EQing, etc. with recordings, by the time a record is released, it's probably all modeled in one way or another.

Ah, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm not going to post clips of someone else's recording, I'm going to play my guitar into a real amp, and also into a Kemper running a profile of that same amp. This is very easy to achieve as there is an A/B switch on the Kemper that lets you direct the amp itself straight to the recording. There will be no processing of the sound after it is recorded. It should be noted that this will not be the same as telling the difference between being in the room with an amp or not - it will merely show whether the difference can be heard when the amp is mic'd (as it would be for recording or use at a big gig). As I've said in the first post, for playing to yourself the "amp in the room" feeling is completely different, and so far no modeller seems to have even attempted to reproduce that (it's not a problem that needs solving).

It can also be argued that the moment you add a pedal to the mix, you're using a modeler.  Any device being used to modify the sound of a particular product is technically modeling, isn't it?  :icon_thumright: 

No, that's wrong.  What you're talking about is called "signal processing". A volume pedal is not modelling. By your definition, a Butler Tube Driver would be "modelling", despite being a box with a couple of tubes in it. Here, this link explains what modelling actually is. In a nutshell, it's using digital technology to recreate the characteristics of an analog circuit.

One thing that is modelling though, is your Boss digital reverb pedal, which you are obviously happy playing through. When you plug into that and activate it, your guitar signal is converted to a digital stream, a computer algorithm is applied to the digital data (in this case an emulation of analog reverb), and then the digital data is converted back to analog and fed out of the output of the pedal. It's not emulating an amp, but it's certainly a modeller.

Let's not get into a big argument about this, the thread is about the pros and cons of digital and analogue amps, and what situations each is good for. In future when people google it, let's have useful information sitting here for them.

 

[Cagey]

In the case of time-based effects like reverb and delay, you're not modelling an amp, you're modelling an environment. You're trying to make it sound like you're in a larger, livelier room. Some pedals purport to mimic the behavior of older reverb/delay devices (spring or plate reverbs, tape delays) because some people like low-fidelity sound, so in that case you're trying to kill two birds with one stone - emulate a device and an environment.

Incidentally, this is why time-based effects go last in a chain. You don't get environmental effects until the sound is produced and the environment can act on it.

It's also one of the cool things about the Axe Fx. You can put the reverb/delay after the speaker, where it belongs. Can't do that on any "real" amp - if you want a "big room" sound, you need a big room.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Sure, yeah. The Boss RV-5 has spring and plate modes (modelling a circuit) as well as hall and room modes (modelling an environment) and gate mode (modelling big hair and mirrored shades).

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I do wish you wouldn't get so strident about this stuff.

That's incorrect.  In my first post in this thread, I mentioned numerous times I enjoyed messing with modelers, but I preferred a live sound from an actual amp over modeling equipment.

Touching on your comments about what the UX2 does and doesn't do, there are "knobs" on the model amps in which you can "sculpt" a tone.  Whether it's a great tone or not is another thing altogether, but you can.  According to Line 6, it is made to "replicate" sounds!  There are also preinstalled sounds which emulate those of bands such as Metallica, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, and many more!  The UX2 has a lot of nice features, contrary to what you may think of it.  Is it as advanced as a $2,000 piece of equipment?  I highly doubt it!

OK, what has happened here is a simple misunderstanding. You have confused the Line 6 UX2, an audio interface, with Pod Farm, the bundled software that comes with it. Pod farm is a piece of software, based on the Pod X3 (released in 2007), that allows you to use your PC as a modeller. You could throw the UX2 away and still use Pod Farm on any guitar audio you manage to record on to the PC. The software's extremely basic. Of course it has an EVH patch in there and so on, but those patches are bad. The Pod X3 itself is discontinued because Line6 have since improved their modelling.

you opened the thread looking for opinions, did you not?

Well, what I actually said was:

I'm interested to hear more pros and cons in different scenarios, or especially if you own both, which ones you use in which scenarios and why.

I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements like "modelling is better, period" or "digital stuff has no soul". They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic.

I can never find my groove when playing through a modeler, it just feels "unnatural."

So, "digital stuff has no soul" then? See above.

As for whether the clips you put up are modeled or otherwise, NOTHING sounds natural through a recording.  There is so much processing, clipping, EQing, etc. with recordings, by the time a record is released, it's probably all modeled in one way or another.

Ah, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm not going to post clips of someone else's recording, I'm going to play my guitar into a real amp, and also into a Kemper running a profile of that same amp. This is very easy to achieve as there is an A/B switch on the Kemper that lets you direct the amp itself straight to the recording. There will be no processing of the sound after it is recorded. It should be noted that this will not be the same as telling the difference between being in the room with an amp or not - it will merely show whether the difference can be heard when the amp is mic'd (as it would be for recording or use at a big gig). As I've said in the first post, for playing to yourself the "amp in the room" feeling is completely different, and so far no modeller seems to have even attempted to reproduce that (it's not a problem that needs solving).

It can also be argued that the moment you add a pedal to the mix, you're using a modeler.  Any device being used to modify the sound of a particular product is technically modeling, isn't it?  :icon_thumright: 

No, that's wrong.  What you're talking about is called "signal processing". A volume pedal is not modelling. By your definition, a Butler Tube Driver would be "modelling", despite being a box with a couple of tubes in it. Here, this link explains what modelling actually is. In a nutshell, it's using digital technology to recreate the characteristics of an analog circuit.

One thing that is modelling though, is your Boss digital reverb pedal, which you are obviously happy playing through. When you plug into that and activate it, your guitar signal is converted to a digital stream, a computer algorithm is applied to the digital data (in this case an emulation of analog reverb), and then the digital data is converted back to analog and fed out of the output of the pedal. It's not emulating an amp, but it's certainly a modeller.

Let's not get into a big argument about this, the thread is about the pros and cons of digital and analogue amps, and what situations each is good for. In future when people google it, let's have useful information sitting here for them.

Look, modeling is just that...modeling.  You take a basic sound and modify it.  It doesn't matter whether it's applied to digital data, emulates an analog reverb, or emulates a dying moose.  Once you've changed the natural sound, you've modeled.  If it's no longer a factory sound, it's modeled.  It's no different than putting an aftermarket exhaust on a car, it's no longer factory-stock.

Pros and Cons?  I was more than happy to list my pros and cons, and you didn't like that, never mind they are concerns people are going to have.  If I have particular assumptions and/or opinions, you can be sure there are others out there who have some of those same concerns and assumptions.

Regarding digital processing having "no soul,"  you've taken my comment and run with it.  I never mentioned anything about modeling having no soul, I simply mentioned I wasn't "feeling" it and said it felt "unnatural."  Simply put, it just doesn't cut it for me.  When I'm looking to "ride the lightning," I wanna crank it up and shake my home off its foundation.  That's not happening when I'm messing around with my little UX2, "2007 technology" or otherwise.  Instead, I'm greeted with an unnatural, scratchy, thin, flaccid, decaying tone.  2007 was six years ago, hardly centuries.  While modelers have come along way, it's not as if a UX2 is ancient, it's still a viable piece of equipment for a lot of people who don't need some $2,000 bag of tricks.

So, scenarios you want.  Here ya go.

REAL AMP

- Recording

- Jamming with friends

- Practicing

- Writing music

FAKE AMP[/b}

- To do something different

- Cure boredom

- Experiment with different sounds (see above)

- Writing music

- Take with me when carrying a half-stack is just not feasible (parents' house)

So, as you can see, there are quite a few scenarios where I use modelers.  In fact, my wife got me this little Apogee thing that plugs into my iPhone/iPad that works with GarageBand, which I'm very fond of using.  It's very convenient, and it's just fun to mess with, despite being extremely basic.

On that note, you can quit trying to pin me as some hater of anything that isn't a "real" amp.  If I recall, you also "invaded" my thread about tubes made in the USA, then went on a rampage, trying to pin me as someone who hates anything that isn't made in America, which, just like here, is untrue.  I'd be more than happy to own many products that aren't made in America (Subaru vehicles, ESP guitars, Ibanez guitars, Ran guitars, Marshall amps, Engl amps, etc.), just as I'd be happy to own a $2,000 box of tricks...but I ain't paying for one.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Look, modeling is just that...modeling.  You take a basic sound and modify it.  It doesn't matter whether it's applied to digital data, emulates an analog reverb, or emulates a dying moose.  Once you've changed the natural sound, you've modeled.  If it's no longer a factory sound, it's modeled.  It's no different than putting an aftermarket exhaust on a car, it's no longer factory-stock.

If that's what you're using "modelling" to mean, then of course that's up to you, but just know that you have a different definition of it to everyone else. I mean, you basically are saying here that a volume pedal is modelling, or a tone control, or even perhaps an overwound pickup. Kinda raises the question, what isn't modelling? Having your own definition of the word is pretty unhelpful in a discussion.

It's called "modelling" for a reason, not "modifying". A model is a simulation or representation of something that already exists, whether you're talking about a model plane, a model in science, or an amp model. The fact that you don' understand this, or refuse to, simply makes you appear stubborn and obtuse and takes you out of line with the rest of the musical community.

Thank you for your list of scenarios, that's exactly the kind of thing I was after. As for your accusations of trying to "pin" you, or going on a "rampage", I won't engage with those. Please try to calm down in your posts.

 

[Cagey]

Yeah, we seem to have a definition problem here. "Modelling" = "reproduction", while "modifying" = "changing". Modelling != changing.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Look, modeling is just that...modeling.  You take a basic sound and modify it.  It doesn't matter whether it's applied to digital data, emulates an analog reverb, or emulates a dying moose.  Once you've changed the natural sound, you've modeled.  If it's no longer a factory sound, it's modeled.  It's no different than putting an aftermarket exhaust on a car, it's no longer factory-stock.

If that's what you're using "modelling" to mean, then of course that's up to you, but just know that you have a different definition of it to everyone else. I mean, you basically are saying here that a volume pedal is modelling, or a tone control, or even perhaps an overwound pickup. Kinda raises the question, what isn't modelling? Having your own definition of the word is pretty unhelpful in a discussion.

It's called "modelling" for a reason, not "modifying". A model is a simulation or representation of something that already exists, whether you're talking about a model plane, a model in science, or an amp model. The fact that you don' understand this, or refuse to, simply makes you appear stubborn and obtuse and takes you out of line with the rest of the musical community.

Thank you for your list of scenarios, that's exactly the kind of thing I was after. As for your accusations of trying to "pin" you, or going on a "rampage", I won't engage with those. Please try to calm down in your posts.

Calm down in my posts?  You're the one making blind accusations, and while you're attempting to smear me up and down your thread where you clearly misinterpreted nearly everything I've said, you expect me to sit at idle and watch without having to defend my ORIGINAL statements in the first place?  Take your own advice.

"A MODEL IS A SIMULATION OR REPRESENTATION OF SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS."  Yes, it is, and REVERB effects were present on amplifiers WAY BEFORE it wound up in the form of a pedal!

Changing the volume of an amplifier is NOT modeling or modifying.  A volume control is already on the device.  Add an additional method of volume control, and then you're gonna have modeling. 

For some reason, you have found it necessary to target me from the moment I returned to this forum (after a long absence) and you saw my post about who made American tubes.  Since then, you've found your way into every one of my threads, whether it's to start trouble, hijack it, or "advertise" modeling when it has nothing to do with anything in the thread (Yes, when you decided to toss off about a Kemper and AxeFX in a thread where I was asking about tubes.  Remember that?  Do you think people wouldn't have benefited from my thread?).  Now, with your false accusations, you've even managed to hijack your own thread.  Congratulations.

Now, let's continue the conversation of real amps and fake amps.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

There is not a single accusation of anything, toward anyone, in this thread. Merely many calm and reasoned posts, interspersed with you regularly flying off the handle.

There is no point bringing up my behaviour in a thread you have since deleted in a fit of pique, as it's impossible for anyone to verify it. It is impossible for anyone to benefit from its content now of course, as you chose to deny them the possibility.

The thing that seems to be upsetting you is that people do not take your opinions on modelling very seriously. This is due to two factors:

1. You appear to neither understand, nor be willing to learn, what modelling is and how it differs from signal processing. This is most obviously illustrated by your belief that an analog volume pedal is "modelling", an assertion which you will not be able to find backed up in any literature on modelling whatsoever. Repeating what you think modelling means over and over again does not make it true; I am afraid your idea of the definition of "modelling" is simply wrong, and the mature thing to do would be to simply accept that. All modelling is signal processing; not all signal processing is modelling.

2. You seem to have the same opinion on all modellers, while the ones you mention the most often are cheap ones based on out-of-date technology, which everyone agrees are not very good. However, it does not mean that expensive ones aren't good either. You refer to pro quality equipment with pejorative terms, which weakens your point further. You admit you have never seen a Kemper or AFX in person, which are the only two units that most people consider to be equal to real amps.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your reverb comment. Originally, reverb on amplifiers was done with a spring tank built into the amp (or attached to the chassis). That is not modelling, it is a real analog circuit. Your digital reverb pedal does not contain that analog circuit, it contains a digital "model" which has been designed to recreate the sound of a true spring reverb tank.

As for the volume pedal thing. So, according to you, when the volume control is already attached to the device, it's not modelling, and when it's external, it's modelling. What if an amp is modified by its owner to include a master volume control when it didn't have one before? Is it now a modelling amp? What if the amp manufacture designs and releases a new version of the amp, identical except for the addition of its master volume control? Is that now a modelling amp? This definition of modelling is completely useless, as it says nothing, but then, it's not the correct definition either so it's not important.

You are mistaking being corrected for being attacked. If you insist on repeating factually incorrect assertions over and over again, you will find that people will engage with them and point out that they are wrong. You can either get angry about this and repeat your assertions in a louder voice, you can attempt to back up your assertions with evidence, or you can accept that you are wrong and learn something new. You have chosen the first of these options, which is the least useful and most destructive to the conversation. If anything at all can be said to be hijacking the thread, it is these childish tantrums.

If you're telling me I've hijacked my own thread, you clearly know what it was meant to be about better than I do, which seems unlikely. What it is meant to be about, is the pros and cons of modelling vs analog amps in different scenarios. However, if someone appears in the thread who does not understand what modelling is, it is necessary to clearly define it before the thread can usefully proceed.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

There is not a single accusation of anything, toward anyone, in this thread. Merely many calm and reasoned posts, interspersed with you regularly flying off the handle.

There is no point bringing up my behaviour in a thread you have since deleted in a fit of pique, as it's impossible for anyone to verify it. It is impossible for anyone to benefit from its content now of course, as you chose to deny them the possibility.

The thing that seems to be upsetting you is that people do not take your opinions on modelling very seriously. This is due to two factors:

1. You appear to neither understand, nor be willing to learn, what modelling is and how it differs from signal processing. This is most obviously illustrated by your belief that an analog volume pedal is "modelling", an assertion which you will not be able to find backed up in any literature on modelling whatsoever. Repeating what you think modelling means over and over again does not make it true; I am afraid your idea of the definition of "modelling" is simply wrong, and the mature thing to do would be to simply accept that. All modelling is signal processing; not all signal processing is modelling.

You are no expert on this matter.  I have a very good idea of what modeling is, and I've stated my facts, while you, on the other hand, have stated nothing more than your opinions on what you *think* modeling is.  I don't need to look up the definition of what modeling is and isn't, as I am very well aware what it is.  Since you are the one who seems to be confused, it would be wise for you to do your own research.

2. You seem to have the same opinion on all modellers, while the ones you mention the most often are cheap ones based on out-of-date technology, which everyone agrees are not very good. However, it does not mean that expensive ones aren't good either. You refer to pro quality equipment with pejorative terms, which weakens your point further. You admit you have never seen a Kemper or AFX in person, which are the only two units that most people consider to be equal to real amps.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your reverb comment. Originally, reverb on amplifiers was done with a spring tank built into the amp (or attached to the chassis). That is not modelling, it is a real analog circuit. Your digital reverb pedal does not contain that analog circuit, it contains a digital "model" which has been designed to recreate the sound of a true spring reverb tank.

Who considers an AxeFX or Kemper to be the equal of a "real amp?"  Just you.  When most people go out looking for a new amp, they don't buy a $2,000 XBox, they buy a Mesa Dual Rectifier or another REAL $2,000 amplifier.  Studios and people who are building studios are the ones investing $2,000 into a modeler.  Name one band who uses an AxeFX when gigging out.  Do you think Aerosmith or KISS use Kempers and AxeFX modelers onstage?  I don't think so.  Why?  Because they still aren't the real thing and will NEVER replicate the real thing, regardless how advanced they become.  Remember Metallica's "St. Anger" record?  You'll be forgiven if you don't.  Metallica wanted to go for that "old school" sound, yet FAILED...MISERABLY.  Why?  Because they did exactly what you're touting as being the be-all/end-all...MODELING.  Instead of coming out sounding "old school," what you had was a thin, flaccid, tinny sound. 

As to address more of your inane accusations and assumptions of what you *think* my opinions are on modeling devices, you are wrong...again.  Once again, as I stated in a previous post, "I'm sure an AxeFX or Kemper is better than a UX2."[/i]

Let's talk about that Reverb.  You did just say it "contains a MODEL," did you not?  Thank you for verifying what I already said, which you so conveniently overlooked while focusing all your efforts on your bold attempt to try to make me look like an idiot.

As for the volume pedal thing. So, according to you, when the volume control is already attached to the device, it's not modelling, and when it's external, it's modelling. What if an amp is modified by its owner to include a master volume control when it didn't have one before? Is it now a modelling amp? What if the amp manufacture designs and releases a new version of the amp, identical except for the addition of its master volume control? Is that now a modelling amp? This definition of modelling is completely useless, as it says nothing, but then, it's not the correct definition either so it's not important.

A volume control on a device is NOT modifying the sound of a device.  Add an outside volume control and the sound of that particular device changes, whether it's just the volume or otherwise.  The sound is no longer the same, as the original sound is now running through an outside device.  Even if the change in frequency is ever so slight, the sound is now changed.

You are mistaking being corrected for being attacked. If you insist on repeating factually incorrect assertions over and over again, you will find that people will engage with them and point out that they are wrong. You can either get angry about this and repeat your assertions in a louder voice, you can attempt to back up your assertions with evidence, or you can accept that you are wrong and learn something new. You have chosen the first of these options, which is the least useful and most destructive to the conversation. If anything at all can be said to be hijacking the thread, it is these childish tantrums.

 

Childish tantrum?  Yes, you're very upset I've pointed out your "incorrect assertions," and it's spilled all over this response of yours.  As to your making mention of removing my thread, I did so not only because my question(s) were answered, but because you made sure to beat your chest, trying your best, to take over the conversation and revolve it around yourself and your touting of $2,000 modelers and why they were so great.  My apologies for removing your targeted outlet for beating your chest about how knowledgeable (you think) you are about guitar gear.

If you're telling me I've hijacked my own thread, you clearly know what it was meant to be about better than I do, which seems unlikely. What it is meant to be about, is the pros and cons of modelling vs analog amps in different scenarios. However, if someone appears in the thread who does not understand what modelling is, it is necessary to clearly define it before the thread can usefully proceed.

Here's that definition of "modeling," BTW, fresh out of Webster's!  Feel free to read it!  Model= EMULATE.  That doesn't mean it's EXACT.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modeler

Yes, you've done a bang-up job of taking this thread way off topic.  Again, congratulations are in order!  ccasion14:

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Just briefly, because honestly I am done.

I have a very good idea of what modeling is, and I've stated my facts, while you, on the other hand, have stated nothing more than your opinions on what you *think* modeling is.

So when you say it it's a fact, when I say it it's an opinion. Got it. Of course I've already done my own research - unlike you, I don't go barrelling into conversations with assertions I can't back up with hard information. You don't have a very good idea of what modelling is, you have a wrong idea you refuse to let go of.

Who considers an AxeFX or Kemper to be the equal of a "real amp?"  Just you.

Guys? Could use some backup here.

Name one band who uses an AxeFX when gigging out.

Rush
Steve Vai
Dream Theater
Dweezil Zappa
Guthrie Govan
Steve Stevens
Megadeth
Def Leppard
Smashing Pumpkins
Greg Howe
Kansas
Creed
Guns N Roses
Styx
Anthrax

(I look forward to hearing the reason that these "don't count")
I don't know where you get the thing about St Anger, a quick google reveals:

Shure SM57s, Sennheiser MD421s and Neumann KMS105 live vocal mics were used on the guitar rigs of both James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett. Hetfield's setup combined Mesa/Boogie, Diesel, Wizard and Marshall amps; Hammett's included Mesa/Boogie, Marshall, Vox, H&H and Park.

will NEVER replicate the real thing, regardless how advanced they become

This is the thing you keep saying without having heard them. I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's a direct quote.

Yes your reverb pedal contains a model. It is a digital modelling pedal. The reason I brought it up is that you said modelling will never replicate the real thing, yet you're happy playing through fake reverb. The fact that your reverb pedal contains a model does not mean all pedals do. A Tube Screamer does not, it's not a modelling pedal. The very first mention of your reverb pedal in this thread was me bringing it up and saying it was a modelling pedal, so I'm not sure how this represents a victory for you.

You're using "modelling" and "modifying" interchangeably, but they mean different things. In your link (here it is again: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modeler) please point out which definition applies to a volume pedal.

Apologies for this, but you casting aspersions on my knowledge of guitar technology is kinda weak when you're in another thread talking about how you don't understand what an FX loop is, or what order the preamp and power amp come in, while I'm actually paid to write technical guitar-related articles for Seymour Duncan. I'm sorry, but compared to you, I very much am an expert - the kind who is able to admit what he doesn't know, and the kind you could maybe learn something from if you weren't so utterly convinced you already know everything.

And with that, I'll leave it. If nobody else wants to back me up on this then fair enough, I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Just briefly, because honestly I am done.

I have a very good idea of what modeling is, and I've stated my facts, while you, on the other hand, have stated nothing more than your opinions on what you *think* modeling is.

So when you say it it's a fact, when I say it it's an opinion. Got it. Of course I've already done my own research - unlike you, I don't go barrelling into conversations with assertions I can't back up with hard information. You don't have a very good idea of what modelling is, you have a wrong idea you refuse to let go of.

Who considers an AxeFX or Kemper to be the equal of a "real amp?"  Just you.

Guys? Could use some backup here.

Name one band who uses an AxeFX when gigging out.

Rush
Steve Vai
Dream Theater
Dweezil Zappa
Guthrie Govan
Steve Stevens
Megadeth
Def Leppard
Smashing Pumpkins
Greg Howe
Kansas
Creed
Guns N Roses
Styx
Anthrax

(I look forward to hearing the reason that these "don't count")
I don't know where you get the thing about St Anger, a quick google reveals:

Shure SM57s, Sennheiser MD421s and Neumann KMS105 live vocal mics were used on the guitar rigs of both James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett. Hetfield's setup combined Mesa/Boogie, Diesel, Wizard and Marshall amps; Hammett's included Mesa/Boogie, Marshall, Vox, H&H and Park.

- Smashing Pumpkins haven't been around for years.  They broke up years ago, unless they recently got back together.  Was an AxeFX even around when they were playing?  Oh, wait, that would have been "2007 technology."  :laughing3:

- Guns N Roses...do you mean Guns N Roses, or "Axl and Friends?"  Guns N Roses haven't been around for over a decade.

- Megadeth and Anthrax?  Funny, they were using amplifiers when they did the Big Four.  They may have been using modeling effects, but they were playing through real amps.

- Creed?  What ever happened to Creed?  Haven't they been gone for YEARS? 

All these bands you named have been using real equipment while playing live.  You know, that guy, Steve Vai?  Yeah, he uses a Carvin Legacy tube amp.  It looks pretty real to me, but maybe it's a Kemper put in a head that only looks like a head on the outside.  :laughing3:

Again, dude, they're all using real amplifiers.  They're not going out there with a little box of tricks and plugging it into a PA System, hoping it sounds like a real amplifier.  There are tons of bands out there using digital boxes for EFFECTS during live performances, but I have NEVER seen one use them in place of REAL amplifiers.  I'll let you know how many of the nearly 30 bands on the Monsters of Rock Cruise in March use AxeFX and Kempers in the place of real amplifiers, because for the past two years I've attended, they've ALL played through REAL amplifiers.  I know this for a fact.

will NEVER replicate the real thing, regardless how advanced they become

This is the thing you keep saying without having heard them. I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's a direct quote.

Yes your reverb pedal contains a model. It is a digital modelling pedal. The reason I brought it up is that you said modelling will never replicate the real thing, yet you're happy playing through fake reverb. The fact that your reverb pedal contains a model does not mean all pedals do. A Tube Screamer does not, it's not a modelling pedal. The very first mention of your reverb pedal in this thread was me bringing it up and saying it was a modelling pedal, so I'm not sure how this represents a victory for you.

You're using "modelling" and "modifying" interchangeably, but they mean different things. In your link (here it is again: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modeler) please point out which definition applies to a volume pedal.

Apologies for this, but you casting aspersions on my knowledge of guitar technology is kinda weak when you're in another thread talking about how you don't understand what an FX loop is, or what order the preamp and power amp come in, while I'm actually paid to write technical guitar-related articles for Seymour Duncan. I'm sorry, but compared to you, I very much am an expert - the kind who is able to admit what he doesn't know, and the kind you could maybe learn something from if you weren't so utterly convinced you already know everything.

And with that, I'll leave it. If nobody else wants to back me up on this then fair enough, I guess I'm wrong.

So now you write for Seymour Duncan, huh?  I would love to read some of your articles!  The same company who owns Seymour Duncan doesn't own Kemper or AxeFX, do they?  You seem awfully "partial" to these products over anything else on the market, whether they be real amplifiers, modelers, or any other gear-related product(s).  Why is that?

As far as not understanding how an effects loop works is entirely different from anything to do with modeling.  A modeler is a modeler.  It doesn't matter if it's a UX2, AxeFX, Kemper, Apogee plug-in, or whatever, some are just more advanced than others.  What aren't you understanding?

As for my quote about a model never replicating the same thing, it IS an exact quote.  Try doing a blind taste-test on a store-brand Oreo cookie, then the real thing.  You'll know the difference...IMMEDIATELY.  Models are just that, MODELS.  A Kemper or AxeFX is a model of a model!

Of course Merriam-Webster doesn't mention a volume pedal!  Are you surprised? 

If you're boosting the volume with an outside source, you're modeling, plain and simple.  Any way you slice it, that's a fact. 

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over it.  No offense, but there are many far more reliable sources on this page with far more credibility and knowledge than either one of us.  I'm not being rude, I'm just stating a fact.  For the most part, I simply read your posts, "duly note" them, and maybe even take one of your suggestions to heart and try it out (hence the usage of my Digital pedal in the effects loop) if I'm bored with my sound.  Using my Digital Reverb in the effects loop was a great idea, and I applaud you for that.  I've gotten some new sounds, messed with a bit, and landed upon a sound I like, so that's for that, but you are by no means the most gear-savvy person on this forum, so feel free to step off this soapbox at any time.

So, now that I've pretty much said all I have to say to you on this subject, let's hear about YOUR pros and cons about $2,000 REAL amps vs. $2,000 fakes.  After all, this IS why you started the thread, isn't it?  Or did you just want everyone to agree with you about how great modelers were?